- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,906
- 1
- 0
Ok - because of another discussion, I think we are ready to cross a line. I think we need to identify the "Dark Era" of doping.
Doping can now be said to be a matter of history. We have plenty of confirmation and validation. It happened. It was there. It was real. Now we KNOW this to be true. Doubters are the equivalent of flat-earthers.
Ok - we also know that doping has been around since cyclist began racing. There is no doubt of this - doubters are the equivalent of flat-earthers.
However, the IMPACT that certain kinds of doping had on the sport have brought us to a new point. I believe we must recognize this point. Up until the advent of steroids, drugs created only marginal gains. Even with steroids, the gains could be said to be marginal, although steroids were a more certain performance gain than what preceeded (speed, coke, ephedra, painkillers). With the advent of the O2 vector abuse, the differences were no longer marginal. As Laurent Fignon said, before 1990, the cyclist's efforts were extraordinary, and the doping was insignificant. After 1990, the doping was extraordinary, and the efforts were insignificant. [I don't have the exact quote, and can't find it. If someone could provide a link, that would be lovely.]
Today, while we, and I believe correctly, believe that some teams are still cheating the doping rules, the differences between doping and non-doping are sufficient that teams and riders who are believed clean CAN win races. Current doping controls, if they are honestly maintained, and if they continue to advance, should be adequate to maintain this environment.
Therefore, I propose that we label the dates from 1990-2009 as the "Dark Era". All wins during that period will have an automatic asterisk, at least in our minds, as we have no power to actually "Make it so", as Captain Picard so aptly put it. However, if we recognize some limits, here, we may be the first to set the parameters of the "Dark Era". And, we will be able, on this forum, to recognize the limits of our conversation.
I think we need to do this, if possible. Historical discussions are becoming extremely unwieldy.
As a sidebar sort of point - I would like to point out that the current dilemma of our sport is very much related to this history. It's easy to see, once you put it in perspective. Doping has been historically winked at, because it only led to marginal gains. When doping crossed the line, to become something more than marginal gains, the culture still maintained the winking attitude, but this generated significant differences in the sport. To return to a somewhat level playing field now required a significant change in the cultures of the sport, and of the people in the countries supporting the sport. That is HUGE, folks. REALLY big. This is important, because many people still believe it is the DOPING that is important, and we must realize that it is NOT the most significant factor in this equation. It is the IMPACT of the doping that is important. People will always take risks. As Tammy Thomas said, athletes don't care about their bodies, they care about winning. Athletes are always at a higher level of risk-taking than the general public. And, some of those athletes are always more extreme. Therefore, somebody will always be attempting to gain an advantage through illegal means. We need to remember that the important bits are twofold: we want to prevent the athlete from permanently injuring themselves, and we want to keep a relatively level playing field.
I think we, at this point in history, are doing a pretty good job of that, as a sport. When we recognize the "Dark Era", I think we can move beyond the anger and suspicion that has haunted us, as fans, of our sport. By recognizing the "Dark Era", we need to acknowledge that "doping" is not all the same. And, it will be helpful to recognize the cultural shift our sport is experiencing.
Doping can now be said to be a matter of history. We have plenty of confirmation and validation. It happened. It was there. It was real. Now we KNOW this to be true. Doubters are the equivalent of flat-earthers.
Ok - we also know that doping has been around since cyclist began racing. There is no doubt of this - doubters are the equivalent of flat-earthers.
However, the IMPACT that certain kinds of doping had on the sport have brought us to a new point. I believe we must recognize this point. Up until the advent of steroids, drugs created only marginal gains. Even with steroids, the gains could be said to be marginal, although steroids were a more certain performance gain than what preceeded (speed, coke, ephedra, painkillers). With the advent of the O2 vector abuse, the differences were no longer marginal. As Laurent Fignon said, before 1990, the cyclist's efforts were extraordinary, and the doping was insignificant. After 1990, the doping was extraordinary, and the efforts were insignificant. [I don't have the exact quote, and can't find it. If someone could provide a link, that would be lovely.]
Today, while we, and I believe correctly, believe that some teams are still cheating the doping rules, the differences between doping and non-doping are sufficient that teams and riders who are believed clean CAN win races. Current doping controls, if they are honestly maintained, and if they continue to advance, should be adequate to maintain this environment.
Therefore, I propose that we label the dates from 1990-2009 as the "Dark Era". All wins during that period will have an automatic asterisk, at least in our minds, as we have no power to actually "Make it so", as Captain Picard so aptly put it. However, if we recognize some limits, here, we may be the first to set the parameters of the "Dark Era". And, we will be able, on this forum, to recognize the limits of our conversation.
I think we need to do this, if possible. Historical discussions are becoming extremely unwieldy.
As a sidebar sort of point - I would like to point out that the current dilemma of our sport is very much related to this history. It's easy to see, once you put it in perspective. Doping has been historically winked at, because it only led to marginal gains. When doping crossed the line, to become something more than marginal gains, the culture still maintained the winking attitude, but this generated significant differences in the sport. To return to a somewhat level playing field now required a significant change in the cultures of the sport, and of the people in the countries supporting the sport. That is HUGE, folks. REALLY big. This is important, because many people still believe it is the DOPING that is important, and we must realize that it is NOT the most significant factor in this equation. It is the IMPACT of the doping that is important. People will always take risks. As Tammy Thomas said, athletes don't care about their bodies, they care about winning. Athletes are always at a higher level of risk-taking than the general public. And, some of those athletes are always more extreme. Therefore, somebody will always be attempting to gain an advantage through illegal means. We need to remember that the important bits are twofold: we want to prevent the athlete from permanently injuring themselves, and we want to keep a relatively level playing field.
I think we, at this point in history, are doing a pretty good job of that, as a sport. When we recognize the "Dark Era", I think we can move beyond the anger and suspicion that has haunted us, as fans, of our sport. By recognizing the "Dark Era", we need to acknowledge that "doping" is not all the same. And, it will be helpful to recognize the cultural shift our sport is experiencing.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram